Modeling the Geometric, Electronic, and Redox Properties of Iron(III)-Containing Amphiphiles with Asymmetric [NN′O] Headgroups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two iron(III)-containing amphiphiles 1 and 2 have been synthesized with the [NN'O] ligands HL(tBu-ODA) (2-((octadecyl(pyridin-2-ylmethyl)amino)methyl)-4,6-di-tert-butylphenol) and HL(I-ODA) (2-((octadecyl(pyridin-2-ylmethyl)amino)methyl)-4,6-diiodophenol), respectively. Compound 1 is monometallic, whereas EXAFS data suggest that 2 is a mixture of mono- and bimetallic species. The archetypical [Fe(III)(L(NN'O))(2)](+) complexes 3-9 have been isolated and characterized in order to understand the geometric, electronic, and redox properties of the amphiphiles. Preference for a monometallic or bimetallic nuclearity is dependent on (i) the nature of the solvent used for synthesis and (ii) the type of the substituent in the phenol moiety. In methanol, the tert-butyl-, methoxy-, and chloro-substituted 3, 4, and 5 are monometallic species, whereas the bromo- and iodo-substituted 6 and 7 form bimetallic complexes taking advantage of stabilizing methoxo bridges generated by solvent deprotonation. In dichloromethane, the bromo- and iodo-substituted 8 and 9 are monometallic species; however, these species favor meridional coordination in opposition to the facial coordination observed for the tert-butyl- and methoxy-substituted compounds. Molecular structures for species 5, 7, 8, and 9 have been solved by X-ray diffraction. Furthermore, the electronic spectrum of the amphiphile 1 was expected to be similar to those of facial/cis archetypes with similar substituents, but close resemblance was observed with the profile for those meridional/cis species, suggesting a similar coordination mode. This trend is discussed based on DFT calculations, where preference for the meridional/cis coordination mode appears related to the presence of tertiary amine nitrogen on the ligand, as when a long alkyl chain is attached to the [NN'O] headgroup.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".